On Friday, September 04, 2015 18:55:02 Ian McNicoll wrote: > However, your use of 'proprietary' in this context is highly misleading, > particularly as it applies to phrases like 'proprietary standards' or > 'proprietary specifications'. > > I could equally use the phrase 'proprietary specifications' to refer to ISO > specifications, on the basis that in software licensing terms, ISO material > and processes are behind a closed paywall. That would be equally unhelpful > and confusing to potential consumers. > > I would hope you would consider rephrasing your statements to reflect your > actual concerns. As things stand it seems to me you are inadvertently > misleading you readers, and I am sure you would wish your views to be > clearly understood.
Hi Ian, I am a bit puzzled by the communications with Gerard you had yesterday. You seem very pleased with the statements that Gerard did yesterday about the ownership of OpenEHR foundation, an ownership would not anymore be called "proprietary". For me is owning pretty much the same as proprietary when it is about companies. But there seems to to be for you a pleasing difference. Don't get me wrong, I am happy for you that you are pleased, and I think I will not disturb that feeling with unpleasant thoughts. Because I think that you have a good logical reasoning about how Gerard's statement is an answer to your concern you expressed last Friday, which was very much OpenEHR-specification-related. It is only that I don't get it. I still don't know how Gerard at this moment thinks about the openness of the OpenEHR specifications. Do you know, Ian? You cared a lot about this last Friday, so how are your feelings about this now? Are you also pleased? Since this is a public mailinglist, in which it is natural that the public is able to understand the reasonings, it maybe the case that a significant part of the public reading here does not have enough information to understand why you are so pleased. You expressed also concern about what potential customers would think about the openness of OpenEHR specifications, and Erik even mentioned the word FUD. Do you think that now potential customers are satisfied by the proceedings evolving yesterday and their worrying is over? Thank you very much for further enlightenments. Best regards Bert _______________________________________________ openEHR-technical mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openehr.org/mailman/listinfo/openehr-technical_lists.openehr.org
